Thursday, September 9, 2010

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory: An Example From Michael Lynch

Evolution cannot be said to be absolutely true, but just about. Evolution could be false, but only if most everything we thought we knew is cleverly misleading us. Short of a massive cosmic conspiracy, evolution must be true. Either Darwin was right, or this is one of those Bobby Ewing dreams. This is how certain evolutionists are of their idea that all life (and everything else by the way) just happened to come together. But how can evolutionists be so certain when there are so many problems with their idea?

There are substantial scientific problems with evolution. Consider Michael Lynch’s recent paper where he states that:

a general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed.

How can evolution be a fact if such a fundamental problem remains unsolved? The answer, evolutionists explain, is that there are many hypotheses for how complex adaptations arose, and that this question constitutes part of the theory of evolution. In other words, just because we know evolution is true doesn’t mean we understand all the details. You don’t doubt gravity just because you don’t know everything about how it works. You don’t doubt the Earth circles the Sun even though you cannot stand back and observe its trajectory.

This is how evolutionists handle scientific problems. Such problems are said to be research problems. They cannot threaten the fact of evolution, say evolutionists, any more than physics quandaries can threaten the fact of gravity or the heliocentric system.

If fundamental scientific problems have you questioning the fact of evolution, then you will be told you don’t understand how science works and that you are anti science. That’s how evolution works. It is a fact and a theory. Religion drives science and it matters.

55 comments:

This is how evolutionists handle scientific problems. Such problems are said to be research problems. They cannot threaten the fact of evolution, say evolutionists, any more than physics quandaries can threaten the fact of gravity or the heliocentric system.

It may not have been a good idea to have undermined your own argument so effectively.

There are segments of the deep ocean basins where mantle rock is exposed at the surface without any crustal cover. This is most definitely not a prediction of plate tectonics, yet most geologists would tell you that this does not falsify the theory. We aren't completely certain of the origin of this exposed mantle; it is considered a research problem. The expected crust might not have formed locally (for reasons we cannot be sure) or it might have been faulted out of view (although we haven't found it, wherever it might have gone). When studying a system as complex as the dynamic lithosphere over time, not all past events may be precisely known. Nevertheless, overwhelming consilience of diverse lines of evidence (paleomagnetism, coastal outline fit, biogeography, paleobiogeography, lithostratigraphy, biostratigraphy, paleoecology) all point to the origin of the modern continents from universal common ancestry (Pangaea). Most geologists would tell you that to ignore this evidence simply because we cannot specify every past tectonic event and much of the record is indelibly obscured by subduction and erosion would be foolish.

Of course, the good continent creationist would tell you that although there is abundant evidence that continents are moving slowly today, we cannot infer that the same processes acting over long time periods could yield the more sweeping changes necessitated by plate tectonic theory. Obviously there must be magic barriers keeping continents together. Of course, the knowledgeable geologist would tell you that the continent creationist is imagining the existence of such barriers because no data from the geological world yield any indication of their existence.

Physics quandries? You mean like not having a theory of gravity that explains all the facts of gravity? If you are so sure of the theory of gravity, perhaps you should explain why to Stephen Hawking. LOL

Cornelius, surely you know that there is no such thing as truth in science. However what happens is that some theories such as evolution (and also GR, QM etc) accumulate so much evidence and fact that soon enough it becomes impossible to disprove them. The bar becomes so high because there are so many facts to refute - which you know is v.v.v.difficult. And that is why nobody wastes his time writing a grant appln to fund research in creationist tectonics or creationist biology. Just as no asks for money to fund research into neo-creo aka ID. Even the ever showy Behe has tried to submit only a journal article. He hasn't found the courage to submit a grant appln. Because anti-science activists know very well not to take themselves too seriously.

Gravity is all around us. We can see its effects real time. It is not just a historical happening. It can be measured and experimented with and predicted.

When was the last time we observed a new organ developing via evolution? Shrinking or enlarging existing organs does not count.

That's the basic difference. Evolutionists see one mutation as being evidence for the whole ball game. Like we see this much gravity from an object this big and so we can predict gravity from a bigger object. What's the big deal? We see water erode the Grand Canyon by this much, so we predict a lot bigger erosion. What's the big deal?

It is not an apples to apples comparison because life forms are complex, integrated systems. Gravity and water erosion can be measured on a linear basis based on known parameters. Adding mutations does not automatically yield a brand new organ any more than adding words to paper makes a readable novel.

I'ts not just that evolutionists don't know all the details of evolution, the problem is that they have never observed a new organ being developed via evolution. You can't study something you haven't seen. All they can do is make speculative extrapolations based on a little change they have seen. But its not like gravity where a little bit more of the same yields a little bit more gravity. A little bit more sickle cell anemia mutation will not yield a little more fit circulatory system.

From the linked absract:[A] general theory for the population-genetic mechanisms by which complex adaptations are acquired remains to be developed. The issue explored here is the procurement of novel traits that specifically require multiple mutations to achieve a fitness advantage.

The abstract highlights the exact problems that I have been pursuing in one form or another in previous threads.

For example, regarding the vision system I have inquired about the minimum number of components needed to provide a selectable function for vision.

In one post where I questioned the focus on the evolution of "the eye" rather than the vision system, I temporarily set aside the question of the minimum number of components and posited the minimum number of functional requirements for the vision system. A vision system must have a signal transduction function (photons to electrical signals) and a signal interpretation function (electrical signals to behavior alteration) to be a functional system.

I also have questioned whale evolution and the necessity of applying population genetics to determine if in fact the extant theory of whale evolution is plausible. Although Michael Lynch does not pursue a theory of population genetic mechanisms in the referenced paper, he does recognize the need for one.

So called "research problems" stand as glaring holes in the arrogance of human knowledge. Sides of the "world view" wars, like to assert their superior moral ability to grasp the truth. Inspite of their ownership of a world built on obvious mental and moral depravity. Good luck with that. Signed Klaatu.

No, Ambiorix, we don't make things up. We ask questions that expose our ignorance, like Michael Lynch did in the paper referenced by Dr Hunter in the OP. And publish them so the world can see them and constructively criticize them.

"Next time try something a little bit more constructive instead of that stupid crap."

Evolution is an abstract process, you can demonstrate that it happens with a computer program. It can be demonstrated in the lab and seen in the wild, with organisms that have fast generation times. Ever heard of MRSA?

"Adding mutations does not automatically yield a brand new organ any more than adding words to paper makes a readable novel."

Yes, and there are many more kinds of models than just linear parameters. Even YEC flood geologists will tell you that canyons don't erode linearly!

Evolution = new organ development?? Sez who? Lions and tigers have the same organs as we do. We have the same organs as chimps and gorillas. How would you apply that criteria to bacteria? If you are going to make things up, try to be sensible and give it a good thinking through first.

"For example, regarding the vision system I have inquired about the minimum number of components needed to provide a selectable function for vision."

I'm interested in the same question! I think if you allowed cells to vary based on three attributes, opacity, density, and transduction, then you could write a GA-style of program that could try to confirm or deny the Nilsson-Pelger mathematical model of eye evolution.

I do think that transduction is an acceptable boundary for the model. The behavioral repetoire doesn't have to change for increasingly sophisticated eyes to be advantageous. You could evolve eyes for a clam (and there are clams with eyes) where the animal has very limited behavior directly wired to the eye, but the eye is evolved higher than a spot of pigment.

Hmmm... i just looked at the abstract. Lynch is going to be waiting a looooong time for a general theory at this rate. A really general theory would have to cover sexual and asexual populations, sexual selection, kin selection, all those other sources of variation on Allen MacNeill's list, etc etc etc. Mutation, recombination and drift is just scratching the surface.

Evolution is an abstract process, you can demonstrate that it happens with a computer program. It can be demonstrated in the lab and seen in the wild, with organisms that have fast generation times. Ever heard of MRSA?

==============================

MRSA don't become anything else but remain as bacteria. As for programming a computer to demonstrate evolution:First: You're making the assumption that it's a factSecondly: You can program the computer to demonstrate allsorts of nonsense, depending on the limits of your own imagination.

Next time try something a little bit more constructive instead of that stupid crap.

Ambriorix,

It appears that you do not understand how science works.

What you're referring to is the observation of objects behaving in a particular way in a particular situation. Specifically, objects fall when you drop them, etc.

The theory of gravity uses the warping of space (the unseen) to explain the particular way an object behaves in a particular cases (the seen). We do not actually observe space being warped. We can only see it's effect.

For example, we know that classical physics fails to predict how objects behave in particular situations. While Einstein's space-time physics provides a more accurate explanation, it is incomplete as well. Specifically, we do not have a working theory that can explain the behavior of objects when both quantum effects and strong-field gravity are important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Given this gap in gravitational theory, does this mean an army of demons is really pushing and puling objects in a way that only appears to be caused by natural forces? Surely, if demons exist, couldn't they actual be responsible instead? If not, why?

We can say the same thing regarding biological complexity.

Evolutionary theory uses various mechanisms of evolution over billions of years (the unseen) to explain the range of biological complexity we currently observe (the seen). These mechanisms are unseen as we cannot go back in time or recreate the exact conditions under which they took place. Instead, we can only see their effects.

What we observe is vast range of light sensitive structures from simple photosensitive cells to complex organs such as the human eye. We see features in the fossil record that can clearly be interpreted as transitional. We observe change that meet the definition of microevolution and even exceeds it in less than 100 years.

Truly, gravity is a better analogy to show the existence of God, then it is to provide evidence of the supposed spontaneous emergence of life and its supposed random mutational generation of lifeforms.

"MRSA don't become anything else but remain as bacteria. As for programming a computer to demonstrate evolution:First: You're making the assumption that it's a fact..."

As if it had to sprout wings and fly out of the test tube before anyone could know evolution had taken place. Evolution is just change in allele frequencies in a population with variable and heritable traits. Nothing about new organs or writing sonnets.

Similarly, if you write a program that has a population with variable and heritable traits, and this population is iterated though time while experiencing some selection pressure, and examination of the alleles shows a different distribution between the first and the last generation, then you have not assumed evolution is a fact, you have demonstrated evolution is a fact.

This seems to be another example of Dr. Hunter pointing out obvious and non-controversial aspects of evolutionary theory and science as if it's some kind of argument. Example?

Evolution cannot be said to be absolutely true, but just about. Evolution could be false, but only if most everything we thought we knew is cleverly misleading us.

Given that this is true about the entirely of science, not just evolution, this appears to be hand-waiving under the guise of promoting scientific literacy.

There are substantial scientific problems with evolution.

And, as I mentioned in my previous comment, there are significant problems with gravitationally theory in cases where both quantum mechanics and gravitational forces exhibit strong influences. No one has observed a graviton, yet it is thought to be a messenger particle for gravitational forces.

How can gravity be a fact if such a fundamental problem remains unsolved?

That’s how evolution works. It is a fact and a theory. Religion drives science and it matters.

This is the perennial goal post problem. You need to cite where you are on the sliding scale for every issue to be clear.

If you stuck to the definition below, there would be no issue as ID has no problem with the below as it describes the variability of organism's traits as a response to environmental factors.

But this is not what you want to project. You want also say that this change in allele frequency does MORE that just describe variability in organism's traits in response to environmental factors BUT ALSO describes the formation of NEW organisms over a long span of time.

In your mind, there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. Yet, it is simply an inference that you believe is warranted but in fact has yet to be substantiated empirically.

In short, ID challenges the macro-evolution from micro-evolution unwarranted inference.

"Evolution is just change in allele frequencies in a population with variable and heritable traits."

"Has any one person ever observed Pluto making an entire orbit around the sun?"

If you'll pardon a little off topic jaunt into astronomy nerdery, it seems that next year Neptune will be completing its first full orbit of the sun since it was first discovered in 1846. The argument could be made that it has already happened based on scientists' certainty of its existence. The general consensus though seems to be that we should count it from the first confirmed direct sighting of the planet, which happened long after they were already certain of it's existence.

That being said, I'm pretty sure that Neptune counts as being affected by micro-gravity since we have actually observed it's entire orbit. Pluto, on the other hand...

I don't think any and every person in the Big Tent of ID would agree with you on that. I think Behe has come out in agreement with Deep Time and common decsent, just not for every change. But I'm not that interested in discussing their positions, lets continue with your understanding of this micro/macro issue.

While you say 'new organisms' I'll assume you agree that we are talking about populations of organisms.

Yes, change in allele frequencies drives speciation. Look at a ring species, like arctic terns. Where the ring overlaps itself, you have two distinct species - populatioins in nature that do not interbreed. (As with the previous "evolution = change in allele frequencies", these are commonly accepted definitions of terms in the scientific world.) But tracked around the globe, you have interbreeding populations (that is what makes it a ring species). You could sample and sequence the DNA of birds around the ring and chart the changes in allele frequencies.

We are lucky in the case of terns that the process is stretched out across geography, and all the stages are still extant. If the intermediate terns went extinct over Canada and Russia, you'd be left with two distinct species and no direct record of how one evolved from the other through gradual changes. But in this case the evidence is alive.

Since you are sensitive to definitions, I'll be clear that I've assumed you mean 'change within a species' for micro-evolution, and 'change of a species' for macro-evolution. And since you brought up goal posts, nice move! The OP was discussing the factuality of evolution. If you think Dr Hunter only had "macro-evolution" in mind when he was writing, please take that up with him.

Thorton: Micro-gravity can be demonstrated. Can macro-gravity be demonstrated?

Has any one person ever observed Pluto making an entire orbit around the sun?

Exactly.Similarly, microtectonics (earthquakes, volcanism, a few inches of drift) can be demonstrated, but no humans were around to witness that you could walk from what would become Africa to what would become South America 250 million years ago. To scientists, the physical evidence of the rock and fossil records are sufficient to establish Pangaea's historical reality. Of course, physical evidence is generally more reliable than human witnesses anyway.

But are they ALL still arctic "Terns"? yes? Have they any new organs or experienced a major anatomical change?

John,

Comparing tectonics to biological evolution is not an apples to apples comparision. A little bit more plate movement can continue to add up and we can measure the movement. A little bit more of a mutation does not develop new organs. We do not see novel, new organs developing via evolution.

This whole business of stepwise evolutionary development of new organs does not even work as a thought experiment unless you grossly ignore the details (as Dawkins did with his BOX EYE). There is a reason why developing embryos are still in the womb or egg.

Neal Tedford: Comparing tectonics to biological evolution is not an apples to apples comparision.

We can observe continents move. In itself, that doesn't mean they had radically different configurations in the past, including a common Pangaean origin. However, we can amount historical evidence to support these different configurations, and evidence that the mechanisms we observe today worked similarly in the past.

We can observe evolution. In itself, that doesn't mean organisms descended from radically different configurations, including a common ancestry. However, we can amount historical evidence to support these different configurations, and evidence that the mechanisms we observe today worked similarly in the past.

Neal Tedford: This whole business of stepwise evolutionary development of new organs does not even work as a thought experiment unless you grossly ignore the details (as Dawkins did with his BOX EYE).

I never heard of "macro-gravity". Gravity has been compared to evolution, but the comparison is a misnomer. Gravity is predictable and measurable based on known parameters.

The funny thing is, is that mutations happen all the time, but no one has ever seen a new organ develop. It doesn't take long for a mutation to occur, so why haven't we seen new organs develop via evolution? The fact that we don't is evidence that the fundamental basis of believing it could happen is nonsense.

Why don't bacteria without a flagelum develop one? There gazillions of bacteria with short generations and lots of opportunity in our big world. The flagelum would be a handy benefit. What would the stepwise evolutionary development look like?

Neal Tedford: Gravity has been compared to evolution, but the comparison is a misnomer. Gravity is predictable and measurable based on known parameters.

Newton's great insight was that the force that causes the apple to fall is the same force that causes the planets trace arcs across the sky.

Try reading the parallel again. We have the observed mechanics of gravity. We have historical theories of planetary formation. We can model the process by which planets form. We can extrapolate the observed mechanism of gravity. We can't directly observe the entire history of planet formation, but that doesn't mean we can't have knowledge of that history, or its mechanisms.

Similarly, the Theory of Evolution is comprised of mechanisms and an historical narrative. We can gather evidence of the historical sequence of events. We can model the process. We can extrapolate the known mechanisms of evolution. We can't directly observe the entire history, but that doesn't mean we can't have knowledge of that history, or its mechanisms.

Neal Tedford: The funny thing is, is that mutations happen all the time, but no one has ever seen a new organ develop.

The origin of most "organs" are found deep in metazoan history.

Neal Tedford: It doesn't take long for a mutation to occur, so why haven't we seen new organs develop via evolution?

The development of most "organs" occurred over millions of years among primitive organisms in a primordial environment that no longer exists.

"But are they ALL still arctic "Terns"? yes? Have they any new organs or experienced a major anatomical change?"

I thought we cleared up that "evolution" does not equal "new organs" previously in this thread. Speciation isn't about "new organs" or major anatomical change, either.

Is the fact that your ear bones were previously jaw bones a major anatomical change? I would say so, but the change was quite gradual, and from species to species in the fossil record you might call the change minor. That is what you'd expect in Darwinian evolution, not a saltational change. The lack of "new organs" is a rap against that interventionist Designer, not Darwinian evolution. How come I don't have zoom lenses in my eyes and fiber optic nerves? Slacker.

"Why don't bacteria without a flagelum develop one? There gazillions of bacteria with short generations and lots of opportunity in our big world."

Since I agree that there are lots of bacteria with short generation times, the issue might be the 'lots of opportunity' part. Let's say your a bacteria with a rudimentary flagella. You spent resources building it, so you're not as competitive against your cousins that didn't vary in the "flagella" direction. But you're also not competitive against those bacteria that already have a great flagella that their ancestors devloped two billion years ago. They already occupy that niche. You lose.

On the other hand, two billion years ago nobody had a flagella, and even a poor one was better than nothing at exploiting that faster swimming niche. The one-eyed man was king! Now the one-eyed man is a beggar. Times change.

The evolutionist is bound to saltation at some point. How did your bacteria in your thought experiment get the "rudimentary" flagella? A Saltation? Something either exists or it doesn't at some level within any complex, integrated system.

For mutation and selection to be successful, a gene has to either be already functioning, or within 1 or at most 2 base changes from working.

The fossil record is a history of saltation events followed by minor variation (Terns).

"The evolutionist is bound to saltation at some point. How did your bacteria in your thought experiment get the "rudimentary" flagella? A Saltation? Something either exists or it doesn't at some level within any complex, integrated system."

I can't agree with you, except in the most tenuous sense. Genetic material is made of discreet units, nucleobases. Proteins are made of discrete units, amino acids. All chemicals are made of discrete units, atoms. So it is trivially true that any change to the heritable material is a 'saltation'. But beyond that trivial sense, I can't agree with you.

David vun Kannon:I do think that transduction is an acceptable boundary for the model.

I disagree. In my post I presented only a brief summary of what I said in previous posts.

My problem is the emphasis on the evolution of "the eye" apart from the fact that it is only one component in a vision system. The question that needs to be answered is: What is the minimum number of components that must come into existence simultaneously to provide a selectable vision system?

A vision system, as a necessary but not sufficient condition, must consist of two functions (as opposed to physical components).

These are the signal transduction function AND the signal decoding function - the mechanism that interprets the electrical signals provided by the photon detector and can alter the behavior of the organism in some way.

The next question is to determine how many components are required to support this minimum functionality.

This does not end the consideration of the vision system. The "infrastructure" of the vision system must also be considered. The infrastructure problem varies depending on the organism being considered. By infrastructure I mean those components that physically support the eye and nourish it.

To talk about the evolution of the eye is akin to talking only about the light detecting component of a television camera. Missing in the discussion is power for the camera and a viewing screen, and the mechanical support structures.

Doublee, well said, I wish we would get an evolutionists reply on this. The minimum number of components to make a vision system requires a saltation... which is not acceptable to evolutionists today. You bring up an excellent point of the need to discuss all the components, including the signal decoding function.

Building an eye in a stepwise fashion without saltation events, with each intermediate step bringing a viable benefit is quite a thought experiment, probably impossible. That would be loosely akin to building a USB connected computer camera in a stepwise fashin with each step bringing something beneficial to your computer system.

Pastor Neal wrote:"When was the last time we observed a new organ developing via evolution? Shrinking or enlarging existing organs does not count. That's the basic difference. Evolutionists see one mutation as being evidence for the whole ball game."

You're lying. We see many mutations. We study many mutations. We study selection. We study non-Darwinian mechansims.

You, on the other hand, repeatedly violate the Ninth Commandment.

Why is your concept of God so weak that you think He needs you to violate His Commandments with impunity?

Actually I understand how chemistry works so next time be more specific, science covers many topics and subject areas.

I was intentionally non specific as I was referring to science as a whole.

For example, are you familiar with the problem of induction and it's impact on science in general? Do you understand that evidence can only collaborate a theory, rather than provide positive support? This includes gravity, chemistry, etc.

In science, we first create a hypothesis which starts out as conjecture and guess work, and is collaborated by observations, not vice versa. This is how science works. Even gravity started out this way.

For example, it could be there is an army of slide rule equipped demons go around pulling and pushing objects in just the right way to make it appear that gravity exists. However, these demons may decide to pull and push in a completely different way under specific conditions, such as when what we think of as gravity interacts with quantum forces.

In other words, agency could be used to explain anything - including gravity, chemistry, etc. - by claiming the agent chooses to act consistently. (Or quasi-consistanty in cases where we lack a unified theory, such as physics.)

As such, why is agency is a good explanation in the case of biological complexity, but not gravity, or any other phenomena?

Without any good reason to prefer one over the other, singling out biological complexity appears irrational.

Whether evolution occurred is one question, which can be considered on the evidence.

Like Michael Lynch, I believe the evidence that evolution has occurred is very strong.

That we don't have a successful model for the development and spread of complex adaptations through does not prevent this from being true.

It is possible to insert a designer into the process to cover our ignorance of this - but there is no evidence of one, and the designer would be constrained to design in line with common descent, which is a very unnatural constraint. So there is no justification for inserting a designer here.

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/